Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 330 of 545

Thread: Does anyone still believe that Apollo 11 landed on the moon after Chang'E-4

  1. #301
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    This article is really good in describing the TLI and the path through the VAB. You will note that it travels through regions 3 magnitudes greater than the SAA.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20170728...ollo11-TLI.htm
    Utterly. Beyond. Belief.

    That "really good" article is the basis for the set of calculations that you recently dismissed as:
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    ... based on false premises and out right lies. It's a paid shill pandering to the uninformed to promote a deception.
    Do you ever read any of the links you post? Because I can't think of a single one that hasn't, on careful reading, completely undermined the point you were trying to support.

    So, anyway, I'm seeing a lot of dodging about, a lot of unsupported claims, and a lot of "Look over there! That's distracting!" Do you have any plans to answer any of your back-log of questions?

    Grant Hutchison
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  2. #302
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Utterly. Beyond. Belief.

    That "really good" article is the basis for the set of calculations that you recently dismissed aso you ever read any of the links you post? Because I can't think of a single one that hasn't, on careful reading, completely undermined the point you were trying to support.

    So, anyway, I'm seeing a lot of dodging about, a lot of unsupported claims, and a lot of "Look over there! That's distracting!" Do you have any plans to answer any of your back-log of questions?

    Grant Hutchison
    I answered them all. It may be the answers were to complex to be understood.

  3. #303
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Can someone check my math?

    1. The Proton Flux in the SAA ranges from 20 Protons/cm^2-sec to 400 protons/cm^2-sec depending on flight path.
    2. The Proton Flux in the VAB ranges from 1*10^4 to 2*10^8 or 25 to 500,000 times as high as the highest region of the SAA.
    3. More than two thirds of the ISS exposure is from the SAA.
    4. The ISSís Labs 1 & 2 have a nominal radiation shield thickness of 40 gms/cm^2.
    5. The Apollo Lunar Craft had a nominal radiation shield thickness of 7 gms/cm^2 but letís assume it was as high as 10 gms/cm^2.
    6. The peak exposure rate on the ISS in the SAA is 370 ugy/hr.
    7. The International Space Station travels in orbit around Earth at a speed of roughly 17,150 miles per hour (that's about 5 miles per second!). This means that the Space Station orbits Earth (and sees a sunrise) once every 92 minutes!
    8. 12:22 p.m.- Another firing of the third-stage engine, still attached to the command service module, boosts Apollo 11 out of orbit midway in its second trip around the Earth and onto its lunar trajectory at an initial speed of 24,200 miles an hour.
    9. 2:54 p.m. - The spacecraft is reported 22,000 nautical miles from Earth and traveling at 12,914 feet per second. Crew members keep busy with housekeeping duties.
    10. 10:59 p.m. - Because of the pull of Earth's gravity, the spacecraft has slowed to 7,279 feet per second at a distance of 63,880 nautical miles from Earth.
    11. 2:54 minus 12:22 equals 2:32 or 2.533 hrs. 22,000 miles/2.533 hrs = 8684.32 mph. That is to say the transit through the VAB was at a speed of 8684.32 mph
    12. Assuming the duration of the VAB Proton Belt is 6 earth radii then Earth Radii = 3949 miles. 3949 miles * 6 = 23754 miles. So there was roughly a 2.75 hour transit across the VAB.
    13. Using the ISS exposure rate for peak SAA exposure of 400 protons/Cm^2 behind a 40 gms/cm^2 radiation shield and ratio it out to the lowest VAB path of radiation of 10^4 (Which is generous to a fault). We get: 370 μGy/hr /400 protons/Cm^2 * 10^4 protons/Cm^2 = 9250 μGy/hr.
    14. 9250 μGy/hr * 2 trips *2.75 hr transit time = a mission dose of 50875 μGy or 50.875 mGy.
    15. So letís recap If the ISS were to travel through the VAB with is greater shielding of 4 times the Apollo and it followed a path through the VAB that limited its proton flux rate to 1 * 10^4 protons/cm^2-sec then the mission dose would have been 50.875 mGy. The actual reported Apollo mission dose of 1.8 mGy = 28.6 times lower and this is without the GCR or lunar surface radiation components. Now because the Apollo had ľ of the shielding of the ISS it is reasonable to assume it would get 4 times the exposure.

  4. #304
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I answered them all. It may be the answers were to complex to be understood.
    You're funny.
    Since I haven't noticed an answer to any of them so far, I'm interpreting that statement as a roundabout way of saying, "I have no plans to answer any of my back-log of questions." Is that a fair assumption?

    Grant Hutchison
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  5. #305
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    I thought I had answered them all. Point out one that I did not answer.

  6. #306
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Everything is not radioactive. To be radioactive an unstable element must emit a a particle. Most elements are stable.
    Any random bit of dirt *is* radioactive, because it *will* contain some radionuclides. From Wikipedia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uraniu...he_environment

    Uranium is a naturally occurring element found in low levels within all rock, soil, and water. This is the highest-numbered element to be found naturally in significant quantities on earth. According to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation the normal concentration of uranium in soil is 300 μg/kg to 11.7 mg/kg.

    It is considered to be more plentiful than antimony, beryllium, cadmium, gold, mercury, silver, or tungsten and is about as abundant as tin, arsenic or molybdenum.

    Similar to Earth, it would have been astonishing if the Moon did not have some radioactive elements in the regolith.

    The salient question is does the lunar soil have sufficient radioactive content to pose a serious health hazard if ingested?
    More like, how much and what kinds of radiation being produced, but yes, it is a quantitative issue, and I am happy to see you now at least admit that much. As Iíve been saying, it is not enough to merely say something is radioactive. Thatís trivial.

    The answer would dependent on the type of radiation present, Alpha particles being the most deadliest.
    No, risk depends on more than just type of radiation and alpha particles from radioactive decay can typically be stopped by the epidermis. (These are not very high energy alpha particles that have greater penetration). Risk also depends on how much radiation is encountered and how it is being encountered. Radiation is not, of course, automatically deadly. It carries risk, but we encounter it, including alpha particles, every day,

    I tell you with emphasis that I do not know the answer but I will tell you also that only a fool would ingest radioactive soil of any detectable amount.
    Than you are claiming any person who has ingested any dust on Earth is a fool, because any random bit of dirt is detectably radioactive, and most people ingest a bit of dirt here and there. By that argument, you must consider yourself a fool too, since some ingestion is inevitable. Of course, like the astronauts, most people donít intentionally scarf down large amounts of dirt, itís usually small amounts swallowed unintentionally, and almost always people avoid it for other reasons than radioactivity.

    I have provided references for any claim I have made and I am willing to search for additional references if you are unable to do so on your own. It should be know that I will retract any claim I have made if proof of my error is provided but be informed I do not accept opinions as proof.
    Oh good. Then please provide the quantitative evidence I asked for in regards to your claim about lunar surface radioactivity. Iíve asked at least four times, and so far Iíve seen nothing from you.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  7. #307
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I thought I had answered them all. Point out one that I did not answer.

    Here’s three:

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...64#post2535564

    You commented on the radioactivity question but didn’t answer it. You did at least suggest you might get around to it if I asked again. I’ve asked, please get around to it. You ignored the other two questions.

    This wasn’t the first time I asked, either.

    I’ve been asking the radioactivity question since early in the thread. I’m still waiting. I’ve seen a lot of other questions that you’ve avoided answering too. Some of them mine, but for now I’m focusing on the three above. Basically, I see you making claims without supporting them, and when people ask you to, you avoid answering the question that would demonstrate your error, while still repeating the claim.
    Last edited by Van Rijn; 2021-Apr-19 at 03:22 AM.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  8. #308
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Any random bit of dirt *is* radioactive, because it *will* contain some radionuclides. From Wikipedia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uraniu...he_environment

    Uranium is a naturally occurring element found in low levels within all rock, soil, and water. This is the highest-numbered element to be found naturally in significant quantities on earth. According to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation the normal concentration of uranium in soil is 300 μg/kg to 11.7 mg/kg.

    It is considered to be more plentiful than antimony, beryllium, cadmium, gold, mercury, silver, or tungsten and is about as abundant as tin, arsenic or molybdenum.

    Similar to Earth, it would have been astonishing if the Moon did not have some radioactive elements in the regolith.



    More like, how much and what kinds of radiation being produced, but yes, it is a quantitative issue, and I am happy to see you now at least admit that much. As I’ve been saying, it is not enough to merely say something is radioactive. That’s trivial.



    No, risk depends on more than just type of radiation and alpha particles from radioactive decay can typically be stopped by the epidermis. (These are not very high energy alpha particles that have greater penetration). Risk also depends on how much radiation is encountered and how it is being encountered. Radiation is not, of course, automatically deadly. It carries risk, but we encounter it, including alpha particles, every day,



    Than you are claiming any person who has ingested any dust on Earth is a fool, because any random bit of dirt is detectably radioactive, and most people ingest a bit of dirt here and there. By that argument, you must consider yourself a fool too, since some ingestion is inevitable. Of course, like the astronauts, most people don’t intentionally scarf down large amounts of dirt, it’s usually small amounts swallowed unintentionally, and almost always people avoid it for other reasons than radioactivity.



    Oh good. Then please provide the quantitative evidence I asked for in regards to your claim about lunar surface radioactivity. I’ve asked at least four times, and so far I’ve seen nothing from you.
    If only I knew but one thing is sure, if it can be detected with a radiation detector then you should not put it in your mouth.

  9. #309
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Here’s three:

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...64#post2535564

    You commented on the radioactivity question but didn’t answer it. You did at least suggest you might get around to it if I asked again. I’ve asked, please get around to it. You ignored the other two questions.

    This wasn’t the first time I asked, either.

    I’ve been asking the radioactivity question since early in the thread. I’m still waiting. I’ve seen a lot of other questions that you’ve avoided answering too. Some of them mine, but for now I’m focusing on the three above. Basically, I see you making claims without supporting them, and when people ask you to, you avoid answering the question that would demonstrate your error, while still repeating the claim.
    I answered this question in #227

  10. #310
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Hereís three:

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...64#post2535564

    You commented on the radioactivity question but didnít answer it. You did at least suggest you might get around to it if I asked again. Iíve asked, please get around to it. You ignored the other two questions.

    This wasnít the first time I asked, either.

    Iíve been asking the radioactivity question since early in the thread. Iím still waiting. Iíve seen a lot of other questions that youíve avoided answering too. Some of them mine, but for now Iím focusing on the three above. Basically, I see you making claims without supporting them, and when people ask you to, you avoid answering the question that would demonstrate your error, while still repeating the claim.
    I answered this question in #227

  11. #311
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    No one willing to check my math? Or is it no one is willing to admit the math is sound?

  12. #312
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Bob B VAB.png 
Views:	19 
Size:	121.4 KB 
ID:	26085
    So this is the Bob B. VAB proton map you guys want to defend?

  13. #313
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    I don't know if you guys observed this but Bob B. calculates the Apollo 11 dose for a lunar transit to be 32mrem. Bob B: Based on my analysis of electrons, protons, and bremsstrahlung, the predicted total dose received by the Apollo 11 astronauts as a consequence of their transits of the Van Allen radiation belts was only about 32 mrem, or 0.016 rads (all from protons ≥100 MeV). This shows that the Apollo trajectories though the VARB were not only survivable, but that the radiation doses received were inconsequential. Of course the VARB were not the only source of radiation to which the crews were exposed. To record the actual skin doses, the astronauts worn dosimeters. These dosimeter measurements for all the Apollo missions are summarized in Table 8 (Apollo 7 and 9 were Earth orbit missions).

    Lucy, you got some splaining to do.

  14. #314
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    If only I knew but one thing is sure, if it can be detected with a radiation detector then you should not put it in your mouth.
    That’s pretty absurd, Lord Foul. Have you ever eaten a banana? If you have, then you have violated your own prohibition.

    “The dose makes the poison” is an old adage from toxicology.

    Modern instrumentation can detect nuclear radiation that is quite feeble. We are surrounded by it, it’s in our soil, it’s in the plants that derive nutrients from that soil, in the animals that eat the plants, and in the animals that eat those animals. We can detect the radioactivity in the foods you eat (and everything that you eat has some radioactive nuclei).

    So, your position is that one should not ever eat anything.

    This nonsensical position is consistent, however, with your other nonsensical positions, so perhaps one should not be so surprised. But make no mistake: Your existence attests to the non-lethality of detectable radiation.

  15. #315
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  16. #316
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    That’s pretty absurd, Lord Foul. Have you ever eaten a banana? If you have, then you have violated your own prohibition.

    “The dose makes the poison” is an old adage from toxicology.

    Modern instrumentation can detect nuclear radiation that is quite feeble. We are surrounded by it, it’s in our soil, it’s in the plants that derive nutrients from that soil, in the animals that eat the plants, and in the animals that eat those animals. We can detect the radioactivity in the foods you eat (and everything that you eat has some radioactive nuclei).

    So, your position is that one should not ever eat anything.

    This nonsensical position is consistent, however, with your other nonsensical positions, so perhaps one should not be so surprised. But make no mistake: Your existence attests to the non-lethality of detectable radiation.
    Is this the sum of all that you have? Really?

  17. #317
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    I guess that settles it. It is hard to argue with a banana.

  18. #318
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I do not know but we can calculate them based on known speeds.
    Why not just look up the observations from multiple sources? Those things were widely tracked by telescopes all over the planet. Even from the Soviet Union, who would certainly not be party to any US Moon landing conspiracy and would have tried to discredit it if they could.

    Really, a bit of basic research would answer almost all the questions you have been asked.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  19. #319
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Is this the sum of all that you have? Really?
    Why, what do you have? 'Cause what you've shown so far fails to convince anyone.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  20. #320
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I guess that settles it. It is hard to argue with a banana.
    It must be hard to argue using factual information too, because you haven't been so far.

    Others managed it here, so maybe it's not so hard after all. They've all given data that can be objectively confirmed.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  21. #321
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    Is this the sum of all that you have? Really?
    You seem to forget that you alone bear a burden of supporting your position. So far youíve not come close to meeting that burden, so the default (that you are wrong) stands.

    Now stop moving goalposts, quit demanding that we educate you, and get on with it. Your evasions only undermine your position. It is not our job to convince you that you are wrong. Delay does not work in your favour, particularly if you follow your own advice and starve to death to avoid those deadly radioactive atoms in your food. Oh, and in the air, too. So hurry!

  22. #322
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Why, what do you have? 'Cause what you've shown so far fails to convince anyone.
    You cannot expect the blind to see or the deaf to hear.

  23. #323
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Why not just look up the observations from multiple sources? Those things were widely tracked by telescopes all over the planet. Even from the Soviet Union, who would certainly not be party to any US Moon landing conspiracy and would have tried to discredit it if they could.

    Really, a bit of basic research would answer almost all the questions you have been asked.
    Remind me. Did you check my math?

  24. #324
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    I answered this question in #227
    You most certainly did not! I even quoted that entire post in my response in #306. In fact, in #227 you claimed:

    I have provided references for any claim I have made and I am willing to search for additional references if you are unable to do so on your own. It should be know that I will retract any claim I have made if proof of my error is provided but be informed I do not accept opinions as proof.
    You have not provided one bit of quantitative evidence to support your claims about the highly radioactive lunar surface that you were arguing for, and you offered here to supply evidence or retract your claim. Are you going back on your offer?

    STILL AGAIN, here is what I asked for regarding your radioactivity claims:

    To be clear, I was and still am looking for quantitative measurements that can be used for comparison purposes. It isnít enough to just say something is radioactive, since any random bit of dirt on Earth contains radioisotopes and is measurably radioactive, though in most cases only trivially so. I would also expect to see supporting evidence for any values you would provide.

    You have not once answered this.

    And donít forget, there were two other questions from the same post you have again ignored. The link again:

    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...64#post2535564

    You claimed you believed you had answered all questions, but I was able to immediately show you had flat out ignored some questions and avoided answering others. Please demonstrate you are here in good faith, and not just putting us on. Answer the questions you were asked.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  25. #325
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    You cannot expect the blind to see or the deaf to hear.
    Ah, yes, dismiss, disdain, and disrespect. Your fallback position when you have no answer is to go on the attack.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  26. #326
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    You cannot expect the blind to see or the deaf to hear.
    Ironic to see you saying that. A science article you provided showed you to be wrong, but you have yet to acknowledge it. Youíve been presented with evidence and calculations over and over, but you just ignore them. You were presented with Bob Braeunigís careful work, and with no evidence or argument at all, you just dismissed him as a shill. By the way, that sounds surprisingly familiar - I remember someone else here a couple years back saying much the same thing, again with no evidence at all. More than anything else, this comment makes clear you simply will not consider evidence that goes against your beliefs - blind and deaf, indeed. But when you are asked to answer questions and to present your evidence, you evade, ignore, and claim simple math and logic is beyond you.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  27. #327
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    If only I knew but one thing is sure, if it can be detected with a radiation detector then you should not put it in your mouth.
    I know others have commented on this, but after all this discussion about the ubiquity of radioactive substances, I’m impressed and astonished you would still be willing to say this. If you did what you suggest above, you would die of thirst before hunger, but only because it takes longer to die of starvation than thirst.

    Years ago on another board, I started a little public notice item pointing out that bananas were radioactive due to potassium 40, potential health risks of radiation and hinted that potassium should be avoided due to its radioactivity. It was essentially a variation on those dangers of dihydrogen monoxide parodies, with the same kind of ridiculous language, all factual but misleading statements. Sadly, I wasn’t challenged and started getting apparently serious queries for more detail. People didn’t seem to be getting the joke, so I pretty quickly pointed out it was meant as a humorous illustration of the hysteria about anything involving radioactivity and radiation, and that while potassium-40 is mildly radioactive and does contribute to our natural radiation background, you need potassium to live, and the actual risk from the small added radiation dose is just not that significant.

    To make a case here for astronauts taking the extreme care you suggest on a very short mission you would need to show evidence for very high radiation risk, and you haven’t even begun to do that.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  28. #328
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    No one willing to check my math? Or is it no one is willing to admit the math is sound?
    Not sure why you are fixated on this - your math is simplistic and filled with assumptions and figures you don't give references for. It is a textbook example of rushed, poorly structured back of envelope calculation.

    Some issues:
    Points that need references: 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12
    Point 11 you are actually working with mean speed but use peak flux - you ignore any concept of the spatial variation. So your calculation basically assumes that the mission spent all of its time in the area of maximum flux.
    Point 13 you use the exposure rate for the ISS which is not relevant - but you've had this pointed out several times so I'm sure you will ignore this.
    Point 15 you have assumed linear attenuation despite the graphs previously posted.

    Essentially you have made a series of unrealisic approximations using an overly simplistic model and got a wrong answer. I'd suggest that either you use the calculations others have supplied or spend more time making a much better model with better referenced input parameters.

  29. #329
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Foul View Post
    The 8 day mission without passing through the Van Allen Belt would result in a .24 mgy/day exposure from the GCR of space.

    I've gone back to this first claim to offer my rebuttal. Notwithstanding that this reading is for a weaker solar maximum by some margin and ignores the effect of SPEs EXCLUSIVE to that time.....I shall use this figure just to do some quick figures.

    Any time spent on the moon would raise that value by 30 to 40% during orbital and surface operation.
    Hogwash in the extreme, it would lower it to roughly 60% of daily GCR rate, 10% of that would has been attributed to the lunar radioactivity.

    The fact that the actual exposure rate for the mission was .22 mgy/day means that Apollo 11 did not transit the Van Allen Belt and did orbit or land on the moon. That is if we are to believe the published exposure rates
    You've chosen the shortest lunar landing mission and rather deceptively the one with the lowest daily rate. Here is a direct analysis by mission:



    Now, taking Apollo 11 as an example and assuming your flawed! figure of 0.24mgy/day:
    Apollo 11 4 days in cislunar space @ 0.24 = 0.98 PLUS 4 days on or around lunar surface @ 60% of 0.24 = 0.576 TOTAL = 1.556mgy ACTUAL 1.8mgy

    According to Bob Brauenig's calculation using mathematics the passage through the VAB added an additional 0.016 rads or 0.16mgy. 1.556 + 0.16 = 1.716 still below actual!

    Considering you screwed up using data that has no bearing on the Period 20 solar maximum, considering you screwed up using SPE data which OBVIOUSLY does not apply to a different period, considering your massive blunder interpreting the intensity of GCRs on or around the Moon......your claim STILL falls below the actual doses reported!

    /thread
    Last edited by Clanger; 2021-Apr-19 at 11:57 AM.

  30. #330
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Essentially you have made a series of unrealisic approximations using an overly simplistic model and got a wrong answer. I'd suggest that either you use the calculations others have supplied or spend more time making a much better model with better referenced input parameters.
    What he said.^

    I'd also point out that Lord Foul hasn't even compared like with like to the minimal extent of matching proton energies. There's no point in "checking the math" of something based on so many faulty premises.

    Grant Hutchison
    Last edited by grant hutchison; 2021-Apr-19 at 11:38 AM.
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •